Brad Ideas - openidhttp://ideas.4brad.com/taxonomy/term/80/0
enBanks: Give me two passwordshttp://ideas.4brad.com/banks-give-me-two-passwords
<p>Passwords are in the news thanks to Gawker media, who had their database of userids, emails and passwords hacked and published on the web. A big part of the fault is Gawker&#8217;s, who was saving user passwords (so it could email them) and thus was vulnerable. As I have written before, you should be <a href="/dont-e-mail-me-my-password">very critical of any site that is able to email you your password if you forget it</a>.</p>
<p>Some of the advice in the wake of this to users has been to not use the same password on multiple sites, and that&#8217;s not at all practical in today&#8217;s world. I have passwords for many hundreds of sites. Most of them are like gawker &#8212; accounts I was forced to create just to leave a comment on a message board. I use the same password for these &#8220;junk accounts.&#8221; It&#8217;s just not a big issue if somebody is able to leave a comment on a blog with my name, since my name was never verified in the first place. A different password for each site just isn&#8217;t something people can manage. There are password managers that try to solve this, creating different passwords for each site and remembering them, but these systems often have problems when roaming from computer to computer, or trying out new web browsers, or when sites change their login pages.</p>
<p>The long term solution is not passwords at all, it&#8217;s digital signature (though that has all the problems listed above) and it&#8217;s not to even have logins at all, but instead use <a href="/authenticated-actions-alternative-login">authenticated actions</a> so we are neither creating accounts to do simple actions nor using a federated identity monopoly (like Facebook Connect). This is better than OpenID too. <span class='read-more'><a href="http://ideas.4brad.com/banks-give-me-two-passwords">&nbsp;read&nbsp;more&nbsp;&raquo;</a></span></p>
http://ideas.4brad.com/banks-give-me-two-passwords#commentsInternetPrivacyopenidFri, 17 Dec 2010 11:25:18 -0800brad1085 at http://ideas.4brad.comThe peril of the Facebook anti-privacy patternhttp://ideas.4brad.com/peril-facebook-anti-privacy-pattern
<p>There&#8217;s been a well justified storm about Facebook&#8217;s recent privacy changes. The EFF has a nice post <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline">outlining the changes in privacy policies at Facebook</a> which inspired <a href="http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/">this popular graphic</a> showing those changes.</p>
<p>But the deeper question is <em>why</em> Facebook wants to do this. The answer, of course, is money, but in particular it&#8217;s because the market is assigning a value to revealed data. This force seems to push Facebook, and services like it, into wanting to remove privacy from their users in a steadily rising trend. Social network services often will begin with decent privacy protections, both to avoid scaring users (when gaining users is the only goal) and because they have little motivation to do otherwise. The old world of PC applications tended to have strong privacy protection (by comparison) because data stayed on your own machine. Software that exported it got called &#8220;spyware&#8221; and tools were created to rout it out.</p>
<p>Facebook began as a social tool for students. It even promoted that those not at a school could not see in, could not even join. When this changed (for reasons I will outline below) older members were shocked at the idea their parents and other adults would be on the system. But Facebook decided, correctly, that excluding them was not the path to being #1. <span class='read-more'><a href="http://ideas.4brad.com/peril-facebook-anti-privacy-pattern">&nbsp;read&nbsp;more&nbsp;&raquo;</a></span></p>
http://ideas.4brad.com/peril-facebook-anti-privacy-pattern#commentsPrivacydata deposit boxdata hostingopenidTue, 11 May 2010 19:30:18 -0700brad1042 at http://ideas.4brad.comAuthenticated actions as an alternative to loginhttp://ideas.4brad.com/authenticated-actions-alternative-login
<p>The usual approach to authentication online is the &#8220;login&#8221; approach &#8212; you enter userid and password, and for some &#8220;session&#8221; your actions are authenticated. (Sometimes special actions require re-authentication, which is something my bank does on things like cash transfers.) This is so widespread that all browsers will now remember all your passwords for you, and systems like OpenID have arise to provide &#8220;universal sign on,&#8221; though to only modest acceptance.</p>
<p>Another approach which security people have been trying to push for some time is authentication via digital signature and certificate. Your browser is able, at any time, to prove who you are, either for special events (including logins) or all the time. In theory these tools are present in browsers but they are barely used. Login has been popular because it always works, even if it has a lot of problems with how it&#8217;s been implemented. In addition, for privacy reasons, it is important your browser not identify you all the time by default. You must decide you want to be identified to any given web site.</p>
<p>I wrote earlier about the desire for <a href="/towards-better-pseudonym-posting-message-boards-casual-commenting">more casual athentication</a> for things like casual comments on message boards, where creating an account is a burden and even use of a universal login can be a burden.</p>
<p>I believe an answer to some of the problems can come from developing a system of authenticated <em>actions</em> rather than always authenticating sessions. Creating a session (ie. login) can be just one of a range of authenticated actions, or AuthAct.</p>
<p>To do this, we would adapt HTML actions (such as submit buttons on forms) so that they could say, &#8220;This action requires the following authentication.&#8221; This would tell the browser that if the user is going to click on the button, their action will be authenticated and probably provide some identity information. In turn, the button would be modified by the browser to make it clear that the action is authenticated.</p>
<p>An example might clarify things. Say you have a blog post like this with a comment form. Right now the button below you says &#8220;Post Comment.&#8221; On many pages, you could not post a comment without logging in first, or, as on this site, you may have to fill other fields in to post the comment.</p>
<p>In this system, the web form would indicate that posting a comment is something that requires some level of authentication or identity. This might be an account on the site. It might be an account in a universal account system (like a single sign-on system). It might just be a request for identity. </p>
<p>Your browser would understand that, and change the button to say, &#8220;Post Comment (as BradT).&#8221; The button would be specially highlighted to show the action will be authenticated. There might be a selection box in the button, so you can pick different actions, such as posting with different identities or different styles of identification. Thus it might offer choices like &#8220;as BradT&#8221; or &#8220;anonymously&#8221; or &#8220;with pseudonym XXX&#8221; where that might be a unique pseudonym for the site in question.</p>
<p>Now you could think of this as meaning &#8220;Login as BradT, and then post the comment&#8221; but in fact it would be all one action, one press. In this case, if BradT is an account in a universal sign-on system, the site in question may never have seen that identity before, and won&#8217;t, until you push the submit button. While the site could remember you with a cookie (unless you block that) or based on your IP for the next short while (which you can&#8217;t block) the reality is there is no need for it to do that. All your actions on the site can be statelessly authenticated, with no change in your actions, but a bit of a change in what is displayed. Your browser could enforce this, by converting all cookies to session cookies if AuthAct is in use.</p>
<p>Note that the first time you use this method on a site, the box would say &#8220;Choose identity&#8221; and it would be necessary for you to click and get a menu of identities, even if you only have one. This is because a there are always tools that try to fake you out and make you press buttons without you knowing it, by taking control of the mouse or covering the buttons with graphics that skip out of the way &#8212; there are many tricks. The first handover of identity requires explicit action. It is almost as big an event as creating an account, though not quite that significant.</p>
<p>You could also view the action as, &#8220;Use the account BradT, creating it if necessary, and under that name post the comment.&#8221; So a single posting would establish your ID and use it, as though the site doesn&#8217;t require userids at all. <span class='read-more'><a href="http://ideas.4brad.com/authenticated-actions-alternative-login">&nbsp;read&nbsp;more&nbsp;&raquo;</a></span></p>
http://ideas.4brad.com/authenticated-actions-alternative-login#commentsPrivacyopenidWed, 10 Jun 2009 16:58:56 -0700brad935 at http://ideas.4brad.comRename "Data Portability" to BEPSIhttp://ideas.4brad.com/rename-data-portability-bepsi
<p>I&#8217;ve spoken about the Web 2.0 movement that is now calling itself &#8220;data portability.&#8221; Now there are web sites, and format specifications and plans are underway to make it possible to quickly export the personal data you put on one social networking site to another. While that sounds like a good thing &#8212; we like interoperability, and cooperation, and low barriers to entry on new players &#8212; I sometimes seem like a lone voice <a href="/portable-identity-vaseline">warning about some of the negative consequences of this</a>.</p>
<p>I know I&#8217;m not going to actually stop the data portability movement, and nor is that really my goal. But I do have a challenge for it: Switch to a slightly negative name. Data portability sounds like motherhood, and this is definitely not a motherhood issue. Deliberately choosing a name that includes the negative connotations would make people stop and think as they implement such systems. It would remind them, every step of the way, to consider the privacy implications. It would cause people asking about the systems to query what they have done about the downsides.</p>
<p>And that&#8217;s good, because otherwise it&#8217;s easy to put on a pure engineering mindset and say, &#8220;what&#8217;s the easiest way we can build the tools to make this happen?&#8221; rather than &#8220;what&#8217;s a slightly harder way that mitigates some of the downsides?&#8221;</p>
<p>A name I dreamed up is BEPSI, standing for <strong>Bulk Export of Personal and Sensitive Information</strong>. This is just as descriptive, but reminds you that you&#8217;re playing with information that has consequences. Other possible names include EBEPSI (Easy Bulk Export&#8230;) or OBEPSI (One-click Bulk Export&#8230;) which sounds even scarier.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s rare for people to do something so balanced, though. Nobody likes to be reminded there could be problems with what they&#8217;re doing. They want a name that sounds happy and good, so they can feel happy and good. And I know the creator of dataportability.org thinks he&#8217;s got a perfectly good name already so there will be opposition. But a name like this, or another similar one, would be the right thing to do. Remind people of the <a href="/paradox-identity-management">paradoxes</a> with every step they take.</p>
http://ideas.4brad.com/rename-data-portability-bepsi#commentsPrivacyopenidFri, 25 Apr 2008 14:00:31 -0700brad748 at http://ideas.4brad.comPortable identity as vaselinehttp://ideas.4brad.com/portable-identity-vaseline
<p>Earlier I wrote an essay on <a href="http://ideas.4brad.com/paradox-identity-management">the paradox of identity management</a> describing some counter-intuitive perils that arise from modern efforts at federated identity. Now it&#8217;s time to expand these ideas to efforts for portable personal data, especially portable social networks.</p>
<p>Partly as a reaction to Facebook&#8217;s popular applications platform, other social networking players are seeking a way to work together to stop Facebook from taking the entire pie. The Google-lead <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial/">open social</a> effort is the leading contender, but there are a variety of related technologies, including OpenID, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hcard" title="reference on hcard" target="_blank">hcard</a> and other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/microformats" title="reference on microformats" target="_blank">microformats</a>. The primary goal is to make it easy, as users move from one system to another, or run sub-abblications on one platform, to make it easy to provide all sorts of data, including the map of their social network, to the other systems.</p>
<p>Some are also working on a better version of this goal, which is to allow platforms to interoperate. As I <a href="/node/518">wrote a year ago</a> interoperation seems the right long term goal, but a giant privacy challenge emerges. We may not get very many chances to get this right. We may only get one.</p>
<p>The paradox I identified goes against how most developers think. When it comes to greasing the skids of data flow, &#8220;features&#8221; such as portability, ease of use and user control, may not be entirely positive, and may in fact be on the whole negative. The easier it is for data to flow around, the more it will flow around, and the more that sites will ask, and then demand that it flow. There is a big difference between portability between applications &#8212; such as OpenOffice and MS Word reading and writing the same files &#8212; and portability between <em>sites</em>. Many are very worried about the risks of our handing so much personal data to single 3rd party sites like Facebook. And then Facebook made it super easy &#8212; in fact mandatory with the &#8220;install&#8221; of any application &#8212; to hand over all that data to hundreds of thousands of independent application developers. Now work is underway to make it super easy to hand over this data to every site that dares to ask or demand it. <span class='read-more'><a href="http://ideas.4brad.com/portable-identity-vaseline">&nbsp;read&nbsp;more&nbsp;&raquo;</a></span></p>
http://ideas.4brad.com/portable-identity-vaseline#commentsPrivacyopenidopensocialThu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:49 -0700brad730 at http://ideas.4brad.comThe paradox of identity managementhttp://ideas.4brad.com/paradox-identity-management
<p>Since the dawn of the web, there has been a call for a &#8220;single sign-on&#8221;
facility. The web consists of millions of independently operated web sites,
many of which ask users to create &#8220;accounts&#8221; and sign-on to use the site.
This is frustrating to users.</p>
<p>Today the general single sign-on concept has morphed into what is now called
&#8220;digital identity management&#8221; and is considerably more complex. The most recent
project of excitement is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID" title="reference on OpenID" target="_blank">OpenID</a> which is a standard which allows users
to log on using an identifier which can be the URL of an identity service,
possibly even one they run themselves.</p>
<p>Many people view OpenID as positive for privacy because of what came before it.
The first major single sign-on project was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Passport" title="reference on Microsoft Passport" target="_blank">Microsoft Passport</a> which came
under criticism both because all your data was managed by a single company and
that single company was a fairly notorious monopoly. To counter that, the
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Alliance" title="reference on Liberty Alliance" target="_blank">Liberty Alliance</a> project was brewed by Sun, AOL and many other companies,
offering a system not run by any single company. OpenID is simpler and even
more distributed.</p>
<p>However, I feel many of the actors in this space are not considering an inherent
paradox that surrounds the entire field of identity management. On the
surface, privacy-conscious identity management puts control over who gets
identity information in the hands of the user. You decide who to give identity
info to, and when. Ideally, you can even revoke access, and push for minimal
disclosure. Kim Cameron summarized a set of <a href="http://www.identityblog.com/stories/2004/12/09/thelaws.html">laws of identity</a>
outlining many of these principles.</p>
<p>In spite of these laws one of the goals of most identity management
systems has been ease of use. And who, on the surface, can argue with ease
of use? Managing individual accounts at a thousand web sites is hard.
Creating new accounts for every new web site is hard. We want something
easier.</p>
<h2>The paradox</h2>
<p>However, here is the contradiction. <strong>If you make something easy to do,
it will be done more often.</strong> It&#8217;s hard to see how this can&#8217;t be true.
The easier it is to give somebody ID information, the more often it will
be done. And <em>the easier it is to give ID information, the more palatable
it is to ask for, or demand it</em>. <span class='read-more'><a href="http://ideas.4brad.com/paradox-identity-management">&nbsp;read&nbsp;more&nbsp;&raquo;</a></span></p>
http://ideas.4brad.com/paradox-identity-management#commentsBest Of BlogPrivacyopenidWed, 16 May 2007 16:34:50 -0700brad598 at http://ideas.4brad.com